<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2002 (12) TMI 546 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109770</link>
    <description>Butyl Acrylate Monomer was treated as an adhesive for purposes of DEEC advance licences and customs exemption notifications because its commercial function changed on self-polymerisation and it could operate as a binder in use. The exemption was construed broadly in light of the scheme&#039;s object and the functional character of the goods, and customs had already tested and cleared the consignments. On limitation and penalty, the declaration of the product and the explanatory reference to adhesive did not indicate suppression or wilful misstatement, so the demand was time-barred and the connected confiscation and personal penalties were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:34:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146787" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 546 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109770</link>
      <description>Butyl Acrylate Monomer was treated as an adhesive for purposes of DEEC advance licences and customs exemption notifications because its commercial function changed on self-polymerisation and it could operate as a binder in use. The exemption was construed broadly in light of the scheme&#039;s object and the functional character of the goods, and customs had already tested and cleared the consignments. On limitation and penalty, the declaration of the product and the explanatory reference to adhesive did not indicate suppression or wilful misstatement, so the demand was time-barred and the connected confiscation and personal penalties were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>